Short Note : 1. The trial Court framed 18 issues and after recording evidence of both the parties, decided the case. Since it came to the conclusion that the firm was not competent to sue because of an illegality, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to take necessary steps for substitution of the names of the partners in place of the Firm's name. Consequently the plaintiffs, made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC which was allowed on November 3, 1977. 2. Held: This revision has been filed by the plaintiffs. They are aggrieved by the adverse findings recorded in the order dated September 3, 1977. It is obvious enough that the learned trial Judge, acted wrongly and without jurisdiction in recording findings on all issues, when he found that the suit was not competent. In fact, the learned trial Judge, ought to have decided that issue first and having reached Hat conclusion, should have stopped there. All findings expressed by him in the order dated September 3, 1977 except as regards the competence of the suit are, illegal and quashed. Case remanded. Revision allowed.